Comparison of electromagnetic exposure for passengers at different positions on the subway platform

2022 · No effect · Low evidence

← Research stream

No effectLow evidencePaper 579

Study snapshot

Publicationmanual · 2022

Study typeexposure_assessment

Reported directionNo effect

Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

Comparison of electromagnetic exposure for passengers at different positions on the subway platform Li J, Lu M. Comparison of electromagnetic exposure for passengers at different positions on the subway platform. EMIE 2022; The 2nd International Conference on Electronic Materials and Information Engineering, Hangzhou, China, 2022, pp. 1-6. Abstract To evaluate the safety of electromagnetic exposure for passengers at different positions on the subway platform, the High Frequency Structure Simulator software is used to establish the exposure source, i.e., the leakage coaxial cable model and the adult and child passenger models. Three waiting positions (A, B and C) with an interval of 1.5 m are selected on the subway platform. The distribution of the specific absorption rate of the adult and child passengers at different waiting positions was calculated at 900 MHz. Results show that among the three locations, the maximum SAR values in the adult and child bodies appear at position A nearest to the exposure source, which are 1.5859×10(exp -7) and 1.0854×10(exp -7) W/kg, respectively. According to the comparison of the SAR distribution between the adult and the child at positions A and C, the SAR values in the child’s brain tissue are 4.98 and 2.80 times higher than those of the adult, respectively. The simulation results are well below the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection limits for the general public, indicating that the adult and child passengers do not suffer health risks under the electromagnetic exposure emitted by the leaky coaxial cable on the subway platform. ieeexplore.ieee.org

Machine Enhanced Logic

AI evidence extraction

Structured fields below were generated from the paper’s abstract and metadata to make the evidence easier to inspect. Automated extraction may be incomplete or incorrect; verify important details against the original paper.

Study typeexposure_assessment

Effect directionno_effect

PopulationAdult and child passenger models (simulation)

Sample sizeNot supplied

ExposureRF · 900 MHz

Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 78% · Peer reviewed: unknown

Main findings

Using HFSS simulations at 900 MHz for three platform waiting positions (A, B, C), the maximum SAR for both adult and child models occurred at position A (nearest the source): 1.5859×10(exp -7) W/kg (adult) and 1.0854×10(exp -7) W/kg (child). Child brain SAR was higher than adult brain SAR by factors of 4.98 (position A) and 2.80 (position C). Reported SAR values were stated to be well below ICNIRP general public limits.

Outcomes measured

Specific absorption rate (SAR) distribution in adult and child bodies
Maximum SAR at different waiting positions on platform
Child vs adult SAR in brain tissue

Limitations

Simulation study (HFSS) rather than measurements in real passengers
Exposure source modeled as leakage coaxial cable; other subway RF sources not described
Only one frequency reported (900 MHz)
Limited to three waiting positions with 1.5 m spacing
Health outcomes not measured; conclusions based on comparison to ICNIRP limits

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "exposure_assessment",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": "leaky coaxial cable (subway platform)",
    "frequency_mhz": 900,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": "Adult and child passenger models (simulation)",
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "Specific absorption rate (SAR) distribution in adult and child bodies",
    "Maximum SAR at different waiting positions on platform",
    "Child vs adult SAR in brain tissue"
  ],
  "main_findings": "Using HFSS simulations at 900 MHz for three platform waiting positions (A, B, C), the maximum SAR for both adult and child models occurred at position A (nearest the source): 1.5859×10(exp -7) W/kg (adult) and 1.0854×10(exp -7) W/kg (child). Child brain SAR was higher than adult brain SAR by factors of 4.98 (position A) and 2.80 (position C). Reported SAR values were stated to be well below ICNIRP general public limits.",
  "effect_direction": "no_effect",
  "limitations": [
    "Simulation study (HFSS) rather than measurements in real passengers",
    "Exposure source modeled as leakage coaxial cable; other subway RF sources not described",
    "Only one frequency reported (900 MHz)",
    "Limited to three waiting positions with 1.5 m spacing",
    "Health outcomes not measured; conclusions based on comparison to ICNIRP limits"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.78,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "unknown",
  "keywords": [
    "subway platform",
    "leaky coaxial cable",
    "RF exposure",
    "900 MHz",
    "SAR",
    "HFSS",
    "adult model",
    "child model",
    "ICNIRP"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "who-icnirp",
      "weight": 0.6,
      "reason": "Abstract explicitly compares simulated SAR to ICNIRP general public limits."
    },
    {
      "slug": "occupational-exposure",
      "weight": 0.2,
      "reason": "Exposure context is a subway platform environment; primarily public/passenger exposure rather than occupational, but related setting."
    }
  ]
}

AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.

AI-extracted fields are generated from the abstract and metadata and may be incomplete or incorrect. This material is for informational purposes and is not medical advice.

Identifiers and source

DOI: Not supplied
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library